As many people as possible are trying to die in order to avoid having to choose between Trump and Clinton. Ironically, more dead people than ever are voting.
Just occurred to me this is one group making a standard dictating standards of another group, so how about we say that AP is now ap because we can so anytime ap is used on the Internet it will now be the ap since reasons...
"AP" is short for "Associated Press," which is the proper name of that business. The word "internet" is short for "internetworked [stuff/systmes/networks]" and isn't the proper name for anything. Saying you'll use the internet is like saying you'll take the highway.
Well, many countries have post offices, but in the UK I go to the Post Office
That's because that's the proper name of a government agency. It's like saying "Department of Defense." It's reasonable to say, "I'm in the army. The U.S. Army."
Just because it's loosely defined, optionally implemented, constantly in flux and generally quite ineffable doesn't preclude its genuine reality and the usefulness of it having a name.
Lots of things have names. Like "the telephone system" and "life insurance" and "commercial agriculture" and "the postal system" and "shopping malls" and "the film industry" and "rail freight" and "bulletin boards." Do you walk down the hall to pin something on the dormitory bulletin board, or the Bulletin Board? Do you pick up the phone and make a call on the Telephone System? Do might use the US Postal Service, but do you tell people that you're Mailing them a letter? The only reason anyone ever stuck a capitol "I" on "Internet" was because the low-information journalists involved couldn't get their head around the fact that it's just like a "road system," and that they don't drive on the Road System.
No, they ensure unique numbers/names for those that want to play along. If you don't want to play by their rules, you can have your own 'google.com' on your own network, pointing to whatever IP address you want. Where is the internet? You can't answer that because it's a reference to optional behavior on the part of network operators who want to get involved in peering with other networks - it's not a thing, and it's certainly not a place. It's a concept, sort of like "driving on the right" or "league bowling."
Or should ICANN and IANA change their names? What do they govern now?
They govern standards, not the infrastructure. Which is why you can use those same standards in a completely separate network of networks that isn't in any way connected to the corporate, government, academic, and personal networks that happen to be what we use shorthand to refer to as "the internet." Just like we don't say we're going to head down The Driveway and then use some Roads and The Highway System to make a trip to work.
No. "The United States" is a charted, deliberate single entity. There is no "internet," really. There are thousands (millions?) of networks that talk to each other through common protocols. When we talk about an internetworked collection of networks (for convenience, "internet"), that's like saying the US is made up by a collection of states (not States).
This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected.
So, European values don't actually include free expression. Will bouncing back and forth between these too opposing goals cause so much friction that the interwebs actually catch on fire?
So why don't you just start your own company, and make sure that whatever the employees want, you just do it? If they want triple the pay and 6 months vacation every year, and a contract that says they can never be fired no matter what, that's what you'll give them, right? I'm sure you'll be very successful running that business. A business owner should NEVER have the same flexibility that you expect for yourself, right? Right. It's not fair if someone else gets what YOU want.
far too many employers these days consider employees to be an easily replaceable commodity
Let me guess. If you were given an offer for a better job, you'd have no problem leaving your current job to go take it - because who wouldn't want a better job, right? But you think that the person who currently writes you a paycheck shouldn't have the same flexibility that you reserve for yourself, right? Yeah, I see.
You sound very insecure about your ability to communicate your value and talent to the person you want to be writing checks to you. If you're worried that someone with extra time on their hands or different priorities is going to make you look bad, then you need to ask yourself why you look bad in the first place. It's not about weekend email responses.
By deleting content, they are stopping someone from saying they want to say.
Oh, I get it. You're one of those people who is unaware of the countless number of other ways you can communicate outside of the privately run system that is Facebook. Have you considered getting out a little more, and seeing how the world actually works?
But Facebook will still be quite involved in censoring content, yes.
Sure, just like you do. Or do you let anyone use systems you own and run - perhaps even your email account - to say and do anything they want? Or would you, perhaps, limit who and how your own stuff might be used? You horrible censoring dictator, you.
How does Facebook censor your own web site? Please be specific. How does Facebook censor your Twitter posts? Please be specific.
Otherwise, I repeat my assertion, by your logic, no censorship or oppression exists since all one has to do is flee.
Where is Facebook making you flee to? Out of their privately run system and into another one? If you decide to start spray painting graffiti inside a coffee shop, do you consider them to be censoring you when they tell you to stop? Do you feel that going to your own place to spray paint the same graffiti on your own walls is you "fleeing" from somebody else's privately owned walls?
This is also true of bullets. You can never be shot, since you will always evade ad infinitum.
Probably by deleting content on their service they don't want said. I suppose they might even do it pre-emptively. Or they could bury the searches.
And this prevents you from starting your own web site, using other services, and publishing anything you want on your own system (instead of on theirs) how, exactly? Do they reach out to all hosting companies and shut down all the web sites you start? Please give details on how they stop you from talking in the world. Be specific.
In that case, if you fled from Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Rome, you weren't really being censored.
You have absolutely no sense of perspective whatsoever, do you? You can stay right here in the US, and publish anything you want to your heart's content on systems YOU pay to operate. How, again, is Facebook - a company running their own service, which you don't have to use - stopping you from using wordpress, or twitter, or google+ or anything else?
But only if you're logged in. And if you're surfing with an incognito session that wipes cookies each time, and has no connection to all of your other shopping, browsing, email, etc., I'm not sure what the complaint is, for this free service. Either people want the free stuff, or they don't. Mr. Holier Pirate Than Thou wants his free goodies, but only on his terms. Just another expression of his entitled world view, of course, but who is older than 12 and doesn't understand how this works?
Are you really this unclear on the situation? How does Facebook stop you from saying what you want to say? If you go on Google+ to say it, or your own blog, or print it up in newsletters, or launch a web site... how is it that Facebook is stopping you from doing those things? Be specific.
And in what way is Facebook "taking your property without your consent?" Be specific. This should be entertaining.
Likewise, on "prohibits you from leaving." Again, be specific about how FB's provisions for you to delete your content and your profile/account are somehow hidden from you (and only you).
And do tell about how Facebook has threatened your livelihood or your life. Or do you mean that you've had repercussions from having posted stupid crap in a public place, and it's impacted your ability to get a job? Yeah, I see.
And really you can't opt out of Facebook. I'm not on Facebook but there are a lot of drawbacks in my offline world. No party invitations, no updates from my friends, people stop talking to you, because you're not on Facebook. So it has real life implications.
So start your OWN free-to-users social media platform. Figure out how to pay for that mammoth infrastructure and operations overhead while making it perfect for users like you who want nothing to do with any system that involves advertising or user profiles - and you'll have a millions of users instantly. It will be fascinating to see how you solve the problem that people at Google, Microsoft, and other fly-by-night operations haven't been able to solve (specifically, making people like you happy while not having the platform run at a financial loss).
If you actually care about social event invitations, etc., just set up a FB account, tell it to drop notifications to a burner mailbox, and never sign in using your normal every day browser sessions. Need to look at it? Fire up an incognito sessions, socially interact for 10 minutes so you don't miss that party you're whining about, then kill the session an go back to focusing on running that content piracy web site you're trying to keep alive.
Then you should have taken the private roads instead.
About 40 miles of that trip was on a not-inexpensive toll road, and yes it is privately administered, though in partnership with local counties. It's by far the best part of the trip. Clean, well paved, wide enough to handle the traffic.
I'm surprised that you believe that private insurance could do a better job than the VA.
I don't have to "believe" it, I just have to watch it. I've never had to wait for an appointment to see a doctor. Private insurance comes in after the fact, when the bills show up. Vets don't get to think like that unless they want to arrange for private care. And why should they? That's not part of the deal.
Face it: our society is not really enthusiastic about taking care of veterans' health care needs in a first-class way for the rest of their lives.
The only people who say that are the ones who actively harbor disdain for solidiers, marines, airmen, sailors. The vast majority of people in the US, regardless of political stripe, have no interest in the VA playing games with secret waiting lists, and letting people die out of sheer laziness and cheap corruption.
However, in the US, we just adore our war dead, because they don't cost much.
What's the point in the trollfull snark? Who do you think you're fooling?
Just drove the interstate from Connecticut to Houston. It's magnificent.
As a follow up... I just drove 175 miles on interstate highway and bridges this week, and it was miserable: out of date signs, crumbling pavement, terrible water management, the same bridge repairs under way for three years with virtually no progress, damaged and missing signals at ramps/exchanges, and so on. I know, you also think the VA hospital system, Amtrak, the IRS's operations, and more are "magnificent." Yes, the government can do MUCH worse than telecoms. I deal with, for example, both Verizon and the federal government on a regular basis. I'd much, much rather have Verizon stringing up broadband to my house than relying on the FCC to do so. Have a tree come down on your service in a rural area? Yeah, we'll get a federal agency on that right away. The same executive branch that's willing to let injured veterans die while waiting months for an appointment to see a VA doctor... they'll be right on getting your damaged fiber back up at the end of that farm road, no problem. Is next September OK?
Ah, the usual false dichotomy troll. I know, it's just inconceivable to you that there's a distinction between "anti-government" and not wanting a bloated, wasteful, incompetent government. When the legislature and/or executive branches happen to be run by the people you hate so much, and they propose doing something you don't like, are you suddenly "anti-government?" No? I see.
No, you mean you're making up that I am, because I said no such thing. I'm anti-waste, anti-corruption, and anti-incompetence. Those things can be found in every venue and institution, organization or company, but they abound in the federal government. If we're about to spend a pile of newly taxed money, why let the feds manage it when they cannot manage so many things already under their control?
If mere citizens got to approve all the stupid stuff governments do, there wouldn't be much government left.
No, the other way around. When mere citizens directly, through mob-style-democracy, vote for programs, spending, and services... they generally set up a bunch of bankrupting entitlements and impossible budget friction that it takes decades to clean up after. See: California.
Slashdot Mirror
As many people as possible are trying to die in order to avoid having to choose between Trump and Clinton. Ironically, more dead people than ever are voting.
Just occurred to me this is one group making a standard dictating standards of another group, so how about we say that AP is now ap because we can so anytime ap is used on the Internet it will now be the ap since reasons...
"AP" is short for "Associated Press," which is the proper name of that business. The word "internet" is short for "internetworked [stuff/systmes/networks]" and isn't the proper name for anything. Saying you'll use the internet is like saying you'll take the highway.
Well, many countries have post offices, but in the UK I go to the Post Office
That's because that's the proper name of a government agency. It's like saying "Department of Defense." It's reasonable to say, "I'm in the army. The U.S. Army."
Just because it's loosely defined, optionally implemented, constantly in flux and generally quite ineffable doesn't preclude its genuine reality and the usefulness of it having a name.
Lots of things have names. Like "the telephone system" and "life insurance" and "commercial agriculture" and "the postal system" and "shopping malls" and "the film industry" and "rail freight" and "bulletin boards." Do you walk down the hall to pin something on the dormitory bulletin board, or the Bulletin Board? Do you pick up the phone and make a call on the Telephone System? Do might use the US Postal Service, but do you tell people that you're Mailing them a letter? The only reason anyone ever stuck a capitol "I" on "Internet" was because the low-information journalists involved couldn't get their head around the fact that it's just like a "road system," and that they don't drive on the Road System.
No, they ensure unique numbers/names for those that want to play along. If you don't want to play by their rules, you can have your own 'google.com' on your own network, pointing to whatever IP address you want. Where is the internet? You can't answer that because it's a reference to optional behavior on the part of network operators who want to get involved in peering with other networks - it's not a thing, and it's certainly not a place. It's a concept, sort of like "driving on the right" or "league bowling."
When you go for a vacation drive, do you use The Roads, or do you drive on the roads?
Or should ICANN and IANA change their names? What do they govern now?
They govern standards, not the infrastructure. Which is why you can use those same standards in a completely separate network of networks that isn't in any way connected to the corporate, government, academic, and personal networks that happen to be what we use shorthand to refer to as "the internet." Just like we don't say we're going to head down The Driveway and then use some Roads and The Highway System to make a trip to work.
No. "The United States" is a charted, deliberate single entity. There is no "internet," really. There are thousands (millions?) of networks that talk to each other through common protocols. When we talk about an internetworked collection of networks (for convenience, "internet"), that's like saying the US is made up by a collection of states (not States).
This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected.
So, European values don't actually include free expression. Will bouncing back and forth between these too opposing goals cause so much friction that the interwebs actually catch on fire?
So why don't you just start your own company, and make sure that whatever the employees want, you just do it? If they want triple the pay and 6 months vacation every year, and a contract that says they can never be fired no matter what, that's what you'll give them, right? I'm sure you'll be very successful running that business. A business owner should NEVER have the same flexibility that you expect for yourself, right? Right. It's not fair if someone else gets what YOU want.
far too many employers these days consider employees to be an easily replaceable commodity
Let me guess. If you were given an offer for a better job, you'd have no problem leaving your current job to go take it - because who wouldn't want a better job, right? But you think that the person who currently writes you a paycheck shouldn't have the same flexibility that you reserve for yourself, right? Yeah, I see.
You sound very insecure about your ability to communicate your value and talent to the person you want to be writing checks to you. If you're worried that someone with extra time on their hands or different priorities is going to make you look bad, then you need to ask yourself why you look bad in the first place. It's not about weekend email responses.
By deleting content, they are stopping someone from saying they want to say.
Oh, I get it. You're one of those people who is unaware of the countless number of other ways you can communicate outside of the privately run system that is Facebook. Have you considered getting out a little more, and seeing how the world actually works?
But Facebook will still be quite involved in censoring content, yes.
Sure, just like you do. Or do you let anyone use systems you own and run - perhaps even your email account - to say and do anything they want? Or would you, perhaps, limit who and how your own stuff might be used? You horrible censoring dictator, you.
How does Facebook censor your own web site? Please be specific. How does Facebook censor your Twitter posts? Please be specific.
Otherwise, I repeat my assertion, by your logic, no censorship or oppression exists since all one has to do is flee.
Where is Facebook making you flee to? Out of their privately run system and into another one? If you decide to start spray painting graffiti inside a coffee shop, do you consider them to be censoring you when they tell you to stop? Do you feel that going to your own place to spray paint the same graffiti on your own walls is you "fleeing" from somebody else's privately owned walls?
This is also true of bullets. You can never be shot, since you will always evade ad infinitum.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Many of those are pages automatically generated by Facebook bots. They are usually crickets-chirping empty. Just placeholders.
It doesn't work that way.
Sure it does. Shall I put that on Twitter for you to see?
Probably by deleting content on their service they don't want said. I suppose they might even do it pre-emptively. Or they could bury the searches.
And this prevents you from starting your own web site, using other services, and publishing anything you want on your own system (instead of on theirs) how, exactly? Do they reach out to all hosting companies and shut down all the web sites you start? Please give details on how they stop you from talking in the world. Be specific.
In that case, if you fled from Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Rome, you weren't really being censored.
You have absolutely no sense of perspective whatsoever, do you? You can stay right here in the US, and publish anything you want to your heart's content on systems YOU pay to operate. How, again, is Facebook - a company running their own service, which you don't have to use - stopping you from using wordpress, or twitter, or google+ or anything else?
But only if you're logged in. And if you're surfing with an incognito session that wipes cookies each time, and has no connection to all of your other shopping, browsing, email, etc., I'm not sure what the complaint is, for this free service. Either people want the free stuff, or they don't. Mr. Holier Pirate Than Thou wants his free goodies, but only on his terms. Just another expression of his entitled world view, of course, but who is older than 12 and doesn't understand how this works?
Are you really this unclear on the situation? How does Facebook stop you from saying what you want to say? If you go on Google+ to say it, or your own blog, or print it up in newsletters, or launch a web site ... how is it that Facebook is stopping you from doing those things? Be specific.
And in what way is Facebook "taking your property without your consent?" Be specific. This should be entertaining.
Likewise, on "prohibits you from leaving." Again, be specific about how FB's provisions for you to delete your content and your profile/account are somehow hidden from you (and only you).
And do tell about how Facebook has threatened your livelihood or your life. Or do you mean that you've had repercussions from having posted stupid crap in a public place, and it's impacted your ability to get a job? Yeah, I see.
And really you can't opt out of Facebook. I'm not on Facebook but there are a lot of drawbacks in my offline world. No party invitations, no updates from my friends, people stop talking to you, because you're not on Facebook. So it has real life implications.
So start your OWN free-to-users social media platform. Figure out how to pay for that mammoth infrastructure and operations overhead while making it perfect for users like you who want nothing to do with any system that involves advertising or user profiles - and you'll have a millions of users instantly. It will be fascinating to see how you solve the problem that people at Google, Microsoft, and other fly-by-night operations haven't been able to solve (specifically, making people like you happy while not having the platform run at a financial loss).
If you actually care about social event invitations, etc., just set up a FB account, tell it to drop notifications to a burner mailbox, and never sign in using your normal every day browser sessions. Need to look at it? Fire up an incognito sessions, socially interact for 10 minutes so you don't miss that party you're whining about, then kill the session an go back to focusing on running that content piracy web site you're trying to keep alive.
No sir. Americans really don't care about veterans unless they're marching in some pageant or showing up at the national anthem at the baseball game.
Ah, I see now. You're a shut-in who doesn't actually know anybody. That actually explains a LOT of your posts.
Then you should have taken the private roads instead.
About 40 miles of that trip was on a not-inexpensive toll road, and yes it is privately administered, though in partnership with local counties. It's by far the best part of the trip. Clean, well paved, wide enough to handle the traffic.
I'm surprised that you believe that private insurance could do a better job than the VA.
I don't have to "believe" it, I just have to watch it. I've never had to wait for an appointment to see a doctor. Private insurance comes in after the fact, when the bills show up. Vets don't get to think like that unless they want to arrange for private care. And why should they? That's not part of the deal.
Face it: our society is not really enthusiastic about taking care of veterans' health care needs in a first-class way for the rest of their lives.
The only people who say that are the ones who actively harbor disdain for solidiers, marines, airmen, sailors. The vast majority of people in the US, regardless of political stripe, have no interest in the VA playing games with secret waiting lists, and letting people die out of sheer laziness and cheap corruption.
However, in the US, we just adore our war dead, because they don't cost much.
What's the point in the trollfull snark? Who do you think you're fooling?
Just drove the interstate from Connecticut to Houston. It's magnificent.
As a follow up ... I just drove 175 miles on interstate highway and bridges this week, and it was miserable: out of date signs, crumbling pavement, terrible water management, the same bridge repairs under way for three years with virtually no progress, damaged and missing signals at ramps/exchanges, and so on. I know, you also think the VA hospital system, Amtrak, the IRS's operations, and more are "magnificent." Yes, the government can do MUCH worse than telecoms. I deal with, for example, both Verizon and the federal government on a regular basis. I'd much, much rather have Verizon stringing up broadband to my house than relying on the FCC to do so. Have a tree come down on your service in a rural area? Yeah, we'll get a federal agency on that right away. The same executive branch that's willing to let injured veterans die while waiting months for an appointment to see a VA doctor ... they'll be right on getting your damaged fiber back up at the end of that farm road, no problem. Is next September OK?
Ah, the usual false dichotomy troll. I know, it's just inconceivable to you that there's a distinction between "anti-government" and not wanting a bloated, wasteful, incompetent government. When the legislature and/or executive branches happen to be run by the people you hate so much, and they propose doing something you don't like, are you suddenly "anti-government?" No? I see.
I get that you're anti-government
No, you mean you're making up that I am, because I said no such thing. I'm anti-waste, anti-corruption, and anti-incompetence. Those things can be found in every venue and institution, organization or company, but they abound in the federal government. If we're about to spend a pile of newly taxed money, why let the feds manage it when they cannot manage so many things already under their control?
If mere citizens got to approve all the stupid stuff governments do, there wouldn't be much government left.
No, the other way around. When mere citizens directly, through mob-style-democracy, vote for programs, spending, and services ... they generally set up a bunch of bankrupting entitlements and impossible budget friction that it takes decades to clean up after. See: California.